A boy wants to take water home to his family - there's been a drought in the area, water is gold. He goes out in search of water and after nearly half-a-day of searching, he finds water. He isn't carrying a can or a bucket or anything to hold water. He's panicking now, he shoves his hands into his pockets, feels something rubbery, pulls it out - it's a balloon. Relief! He fills the balloon and is on his way back when he meets another boy who joins him. Now this boy is mischievous, he has a pin; he wants to play more than drink (that's just him). He takes the pin, jabs the balloon and out through a hole water spouts out. Hey, this is fun! Another jab, another hole, one more, and another, and another ... The balloon looks like a sprinkler now. They arrive at their destination. Everybody's thirsty.

Both boys are philosophers!

Are you implying that God could be an AI?
You know, if God is, lets say, an imaginary friend. Aren't imaginary friends technically AI? — Yohan

I'm trying to see if there's a pattern by phasing out a being from the equation. God $\to$ AI $\to$ the laws of nature. Automation.

subjective — Jack Cummins

:up:

Thoughts can be presented in a coherent, easy-to-grok fashion; in fact communication is all about that. However, there are times when this isn't achieved (word salad) and it is then that one projects oneself onto the text/picture/sound/touch/taste/smell - you see things ... in a manner of speaking ... glimpses of your own beautiful mind.

distortions, misunderstandings — Jack Cummins

I'd say the image in a mirror can be used to detect the shape of the mirror. A quick way to tell you whether a stellar image is Hubble or James Webb is to look at how many rays of light the star appears to have. If you wanna know it's 4 for the former and 6 for the latter.

Can you explain what it means to explain?
I think of explain as spotting even more pattern. Like, "How does this pattern fit with other patterns? — Yohan

Gravitational phenomena
1. Objects with mass attract (pattern)
2. Mass warps space (explanation of the pattern)

Newton offered none (hypothesis non fingo).

Intriguingly, "explaining" pattern A with pattern B is circular since A = B. Perhaps understanding is just that - recognizing similarities/differences in patterns. Mathematics kinda stands out for the simple reason that some of the patterns we see don't have comparable precedents. Can we say we grok these?

What are the humanities? Learning concerned with human culture, especially literature, history, art, music, and philosophy.

What is a social science? A social science is any branch of academic study or science that deals with human behaviour in its social and cultural aspects.

These disciplines/activities are a study of humans of humans by humans for humans. :snicker: They fall under the broad rubric of the Delphic maxim temet nosce (know thyself). Notwithstanding that this is self-promotion, my own view on the matter is we're like stroke patients with hemiagnosia (neglecting/ignoring aspects of us - culture, creativity, values, etc. - that make us us) if we downgrade the importance of the humanities & the social sciences.

The name humanities is a big hint in re how vital these subjects are to our understanding of ourselves. The social sciences are designed to interpret the relationship between the individual and the group, what's the bond that holds the community and how these bonds are stressed and sometimes broken.

If we reduce this to mathematics:
Does 1+1 equal 2 because God created the rules of math, or does God proclaim that 1+1 = 2 because 1+1 = 2?
Is there a third option? That God IS the rules of math?

What is the basis for axioms. Philosophy and science, any knowledge endeavor, relies upon axioms. Where do axioms get their authority from? What are axioms? Physical, mental, or something else?

Axioms don't strike me as physical. Therefor I am inclined to think they rest upon some absolute "mind" sort of reality.

Are axioms true because God says so, or does God proclaim the axioms because they are true, or is God the apex axiom? — Yohan

Magnifique! A new angle to the problem.

Is God a mathematician? — Mario Livio

Is God an accountant?

Are there AI accountants?

Well, we once believed in geocentrism. That was blown clean out of the water and replaced with heliocentrism; the same thing happened to the Milky Way galaxy, this was due to the observation of innumerable other galaxies which led us to this, our universe. There's this trend that's too obvious to miss (a steady demotion of earth and its inhabitants, especiaply us humans, from centerstage to the sidelines) - our universe is going to meet the same fate with the multiverse. The question that needs asking now is "what's there beyond the multiverse?"

Now if unpleasant NDEs are part of the reports, it defintely gives this phenomenon more credibility, but unfortunately this isn't enough for the subject to be taken seriously by scientists. Part of the problem is death is, like it or not, all life's event horizon - we can't see beyond, it is the limit of our observational capabilities.

Also, release of endogenous neuroleptic chemicals maybe how NDEs are triggered. I'm not sure about this, perhaps its anecdotal, but some people who've received severe physical trauma and are still conscious don't feel the pain they should. One explanation that pops to mind is the brain on such occasions releases painkiller chemicals as there's really no point to the pain anymore (death is inevitable). NDEs (the nice ones) could be merely extensions of this mechanism.

One odd thing is there are few/no stories of NDEs vis-à-vis fainting/epileptic fits/general anesthesia.

Maybe NDE is simply dying (in a pleasant manner). All reported NDEs are accounts of suspiciously positive experiences (lights/bright colors/survival of consciousness). My bullshitometer gives me a reading that isn't very encouraging, sorry.

I feel the brain wants to end on a good note - the carmen cygni is always a grand performance!

That said, I feel Dr. Bruce Gregson, if he's telling the truth, has a compelling reason to investigate this phenomenon thoroughly and with all the help he can get from science. There are so many mundane explanations for his experience that I feel his research results won't match some people's, those who believe in an afterlife, expectations.

Tertium quid?

I wish life were an endlessly fascinating riddle to be solved.

Oh wait. It is! — apokrisis

Ok, but there's gotta be something you don't like about yourself, oui monsieur? Nobody's that perfect!

What about modulus arithmetic? A simple example is the clock; contrary to the joke about 13 o'clock being the time to buy a new clock, 13 o'clock is 1 o'clock. Time is infinite is the received wisdom and we tamed that beast using modulus arithmetic. Ouroboros/Sisyphusean arithmetic could be another name for it. In Hindy mythology, if movies are to be believed, the wheel (finite) is the symbol of time (infinite).

$0 + 0 = 0$

$\infty + \infty = \infty$

$\infty$, rather $0$ish!

Supertask (James F. Thomson of Thomson's lamp fame); What o'clock is it after $\infty$ time has elapsed?

Indeeed, to sum up the OP, our wants/needs (reasons) are not our own i.e. we didn't choose them nor were we consulted when they were installed in our minds and to that extent it is a cross to bear. I wish I was an airatarian but I'm not and that statement encapsulates the key point in the OP.

Play around with pressure & normal air and I'm sure you'll find just the right combination to suit your needs.

.
.
.
IF f(n) $\geq$ MAX THEN f(n) = MAX
.
.

A line of code in our (simulated) universe where f(n) is any function on n (any number) and MAX is the largest number permissible within the simulation.

Nice. That's how I view Heidegger... — Tom Storm

@Jack Cummins

Ok. To make a larger point, word salads are, in my humble opinion, Rorschach tests too. What pattern do you see in a text of random/loosely-associated words/sentences, that's you, not the text's author. I'm way in over my head.

I'm not sure what the thrust of your discussion is. It's a bit incoherent. — Bitter Crank

This is what I call a text-based Rorschach Test mon ami. It's about what you see in the text and not about what the text's contents are. :smile:

I see - there's the cause for democracy (tyranny) & there's the process of democracy (pledging allegiance). It's quite interesting this allegiance business - from to a man (king) to to an idea (democracy). It appears that one must trust one's fellow man to do the same for the well-being of all of course.

lack of models & aesthetics — Eros1982

1. Nobody's perfect
2. Truth is ugly

Maybe the absence of good role models is the point! We're all flawed beings and we have to come to terms with this rather disconcerting fact. To expect what is impossible is itself a great folly in my humble opinion. Why not just accept the fact that your mayor is a womanizer but has brought down crime rates to a record low. Remember Finnish PM Sanna Marin.

Le meglio è l'inimico del bene (the perfect is the enemy of the good). — Voltaire

The bottom line - be realistic! Don't expect oranges from a lemon tree. Sweeter lemons every now and then, now that's what we can hope for. :snicker:

"No refunds" - Socrates — Yohan

Customers not happy! :smile:

Instead of "philosopher" I call myself

freethinker (offline) &

dialectical rodeo clown (online). — 180 Proof

:fire:

Who knows how many civilians, children, non-combatants have been killed... Destroying infrastructure doesn't help. — jorndoe

Also, need to look into long-term consequences of living in war zones - depression, shell-shock, etc. Most statistics on war I've noticed are skewed, mortality (deaths) is given more weightage than morbidity (suffering); antinatalists might need to factor that into their philosophy. Perhaps suffering is hard to measure compared to deaths; after all with the latter all we need to do is count bodies & body parts.

Danke for the song and the mention. I finally realize why pulchrum (beauty) is listed amomg the transcendentalia [Verum (truth), Bonum (Good), Pulchrum (beauty)]. It is an extremely poweful force with both creative and destructive potential. Respect!

So, you mean to say that all so-called quantum weirdness goes away once you approach the quatum world from a holistic point-of-view. You made an interesting point when you said that the results of the double-slit experiment makes complete sense if we consider electrons as both a wave and particle. I guess this ties into your BothAnd idea. Interesting stuff except that from a classical logic POV, its a contradiction, what's a wave isn't a particle and vice versa. How do you respond?

"Superheroes" and celebrities. — 180 Proof

:up: I'm sure there are some people out there who worship movie stars - thespians who've acquired legendary status among their fans, becoming role models to emulate and fall in love with.

He's catholic. — Yohan

Malus Deus. :chin:

Thats what the logicians and rationalists want you to think. If that were true, then the nerds, dorks, and eggheads would have street smarts, am I wrong? Just being devils advocate — Yohan

Don't blame the tool, si? :chin:

Pattern recognition. — Yohan

I'd have to say sic et non. For example, humans, psychologists say, exhibit patterns in their behavior - we found that out through observation + experiment. However to understand these patterns would require an explanatory hypothesis/theory.

Step 1: Find patterns (what?)
Step 2: Explain the patterns found (why?)

To be fair, both are included in what it means to understand.

I'll take this as disagree — Changeling

I wonder what Jack Cummins thinks about the song.

I no longer wish to be a philosopher - an ugly, annoying Greek (re Socrates)!

Most perceptive of you! :up:

I don't wish to write word salad and I just like to juggle ideas as a way of thinking, almost like lateral thinking. — Jack Cummins

Saltus in demonstrando (leap in explaining): A leap in logic, by which a necessary part of an equation is omitted.

It is therefore obvious that ... (Frequently used in the Celestial Mechanics when he had proved something and mislaid the proof, or found it clumsy. Notorious as a signal for something true, but hard to prove.) — Wikipedia (on Pierre-Simon Laplace's tendency to omit proofs)

Beware: Loosening of associations (word salad).

Contradiction — Yohan

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

Sorry, I don't understand the song! Why would anyone blame someone for a moonlit night? For the dream that died, yeah, that makes sense. Heartbreak? :broken: That's the immense power of pulchrum (beauty); find a copy of the Arabian version of Romeo & Juliet (Layla & Majnun) and read about divānagi (love madness).

Haven't I said enough pseudo coherent babble? — Yohan

They were not bad posts. No matter how incoherent you try to be, some sense slips through!

This sentence looks like word salad to me. I think you have not found then correct words to ask your question or that you are using these words in a very ambiguous way. — I like sushi

It's just his style. There are many others around here like him.

It is a question of whether intelligence is an upgrade or a downgrade in the sense of civilisation has been achieved. However, human beings have created so much destruction and plundered the planet rather than acting as stewards of the natural world. — Jack Cummins

All our tools, from logic to nuclear power, are by and large dual-purpose - can be used for good and bad with equal efficacy. Given such versatility, a much-prized feature, we can either thank our lucky stars or curse our luck. Do both, eh? How to get the best of both/all worlds is the million dollar question, si señor?

Returning to the concerns you expressed in the OP, I'd say we need to somehow get our hands on, as one podcaster said ,"[wisdom is knowledge of] that which is good AND true" You're seeking wisdom Jack, wisdom!

It is the problem which faces anyone who writes that they cannot predict what will be done with their work. It is a bit like music. There is always the risk that someone at some stage will name a song which made them feel suicidal or lead them to self harm. Of course, it may be partly about projection and people latching onto certain ideas sometimes though rather than simply about the actual ideas and those who developed them — Jack Cummins

Some parasitic worms have given up their brains (neurological devolution). This is not a regression as far as the worm is concerned (brains are gas guzzlers in a manner of speaking, very expensive to maintain biologists say).

I neither know nor think I know. — Socrates

No one is wiser than Socrates. — The Delphic Oracle

Mushin no shin (mind without mind).

The long and short of it - I'm not sure whether intelligence is an upgrade or a downgrade. :snicker:

One point worth mentioning is that the consequences/effects/ramifications of a belief are notoriously hard if not impossible to predict. In other words to be genuinely concerned about them would mean thst one has to be some kind of seer/fortune-teller/logician of a caliber that the world has not yet seen. That's the downside. Quite sad that!

So, Jack, the choices are not truth or good which is what I guess you're getting at but are choas or chaos.

Any colour you like, they're all blue. — Wikipedia

Sic vita est! Bonam fortunam Jack.

Stop torturing yourself. :sweat: — 180 Proof

Good advice! Leave that to the other people.